@W31rd0, are you really supporting children soldier? It exists countries who use it in Africa for example, but it don't work very well because of the mature level. I thinks sending people against their will in war is going against the human's right and sending children to war is especially very brutal.

I know war is brutal. But you have to think about the situation. If you are dealing with enemies, and they are killing your able-bodied men and women, then you, as a child, may choose to surrender to the enemy and let them do whatever they want with you. So, in that kind of desperate situation, if you choose not to surrender, then you should fight. Freedom is not free. Human rights must be won, because other humans will not respect them willingly unless you force them to.

If country A attacks country B and the country B's population decreases I would rather let the country A and B be one country instead of sending children to war. Forcing children to war is awful and I don't understand how some people can support child soldiers.

It really depends on what your value is. Some people don't want to surrender to the enemy, and they will go to extreme lengths, like training children to become soldiers to defend the land and the people's sense of dignity. Other people will take the submissive route and surrender to the enemy. But surrendering means that the enemy can do whatever it wants with you, including enslaving you and torturing you. Either way is ugly and painful.

Most Helpful Guy

Well, I think IF you're going to have an army (which I'm critical of anyway), it makes sense to make it obligatory for everyone. I admit this is quite an infringement on personal liberty but it also holds some benefits. Most importantly, the army can be a place where people from very different backgrounds come together and work on things as a group. If you're rich, you might have a poor buddy in your troop, if you're white you might be among other races or recent immigrants, if you're from a big city you might deal with countryside folks... in some countries like Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, Ireland or Finland it can even bring together people who speak different languages. In that sense, it''s a great melting pot that can - with some luck - make many young soldiers more tolerant and understanding of otherness. This gives a society a feeling of belonging together, rather than being divided by such (mostly irrelevant) differences.

However, I also believe that civil service should be an alternative. Especially in times of peace, these types of "jobs" can be even more valuable and the social effects might be quite similar. For example one of my best friends is currently doing his (mandatory) civil service. He was ordered to work in a home for refugees and he absolutely loves the job. While most people only read about the "evil refugees" in the newspaper, he actually deals with them everyday. For example he has organized a little program where he makes cultural tours once a week. Any refugee who is interested can join the group and they visit a museum or exhibition together. For the refugees, this is really cool because they have to sit around all day and they're so bored. So he has already received a lot of good feedback and made some friends ;-). There's even a young couple from Iraq that we invited to a little garden BBQ party with some friends. They're both really great people and they speak good English. It was so nice to see them so happy... I think just sitting there with some nice people and talking/eating in a peaceful atmosphere really meant the world to them.

3

1|2

0|0

Have an opinion?

Sign up or log in to share

What Girls Said 8

No. No one should be forced to risk their life. And what if they don't agree with the war or what the war is for in the first place? No one wants to risk their life for a cause they don't believe in. let the people that want to fight fight. I'd rather immigrate to another country than be forced to join the military.

I would also rather immigrate to another country than joining the military - as a pacifist. As long my country have the policy that says autistic people aren't allowed to serve I'm all good and don't need to serve. Nowadays only volunteers serves, but it certain circumstances it can change I guess. If Russia attacked Norway I'm not surprised if our country forced people to join.

i wouldn't have a problem if these people were volunteers, but as we're talking about making it mandatory, I know that's not your angle. I still don't think that one should be forced to join or be forced to train to aide the military or other such forces. Making such courses more open to volunteers though is something I would consider. Of course there would still be some tests, but that would widen the number of individuals that could aid when need be while still allowing others to make their own decisions. although in total war, men would get drafted anyway, so it would be like forcing them. and there's nothing I can do to change that.

Why some countries have mandatory military service is because if they don't they won't have enough soldiers going to war. South-Korea has North-Korea as a threat and Finland worries about Russia. If the country has a low population it needs soldiers and hasn't enough volunteers. Then everybody between 18 - 20 have to serve between 6 months to 2 years depending on the country. If you don't want to serve you can either do civilian service or go to prison in such countries.

in my country it is. helped my brothers become more organised, sleep early, be disciplined and man up. and learn to coexist with others. definitely helps. except if you have been super disciplined, and hard working and masculinised since childhood so the army is worthless for you.

lol if you are so antisystemic go live in the mountains as a guerilla. since you live in the capitalist system, which works with nations/countries, and is based on imperialism and the propaganda of nationalism, and reap its benefits and luxuries, shut the f up and grab that rifle. or else, go play anarchic guerilla on the mountains.

@curiousnorway I learned many ways to kill humans and to do it bare handed or using army tools (from bayonet to 155 mm self propelled howitzer), even wearing a gas mask. I taught other conscripts there about the Geneva Convention. But they only did as if hey listened. I waged bets and won with noncoms about taking apart and reassembling firearms blindfolded.Etc, etc...I slept in bushes and in jeeps and in a full track. I drove big trucks in marshes. The Friday they left me in a neighbor country without any military mission paper but with a complete company (some 100 men in 25 or so military vehicles) I bluffed and abused my rank to get gas in some army base and brought them home. That evening the colonel punished me because I didn't wash and disarm before entering his mess.How interesting and educative...

During peaceful times, you shouldn't be, but if things get bad enough that the draft comes into play, go. Freedom isn't free and you gotta protect it, your home, the people you care about, with everything you got.

@MysteriousDarkness it's only an idea that i sort of like. but i guess you could grandfather in people who already own guns especially those well beyond the age to serve. so if you applied this new law it would only apply to people young enough to serve who want to purchase guns.

I think military service should be mandatory only if necessary for the defense of the homeland. In the US, we have a provision for a sincere conscientious objector to not participate in armed aggression.

I encourage people to not join the US military for one simple reason. WE ARE NOT BEING ATTACKED. WE ARE THE AGGRESSORS!

When you join the largest industry in the USA, the military industrial complex, you are risking your life as well as maybe killing others all in the name of making bankers and evil people money. That is what today's wars are about.

And people wonder why America is so hated around the world. Who can blame these countries for hating us when we continue to bomb and kill their people on their soil.

other, national service is a good idea, at least for a short period of time. Seeming that the vast majority of places in the world have defence forces for obvious reasons, it'd be easier to defend a nation if everyone had at least militia training of weaponry and the lay of the land.

Mandatory military service though? No, seeming that a lot of wars these days are rarely fought for the survival of ones country and more for the interest of the state. As well as the fact that it is the job of the soldiers to fight our wars that otherwise don't concern us much/at all at home. I'd be more likely to say yes to mandatory military service if there was considerable chance that your homeland was under threat (enemy troops are considered powerful and fast moving enough within a certain range or literally attacking on home soil)

civilian/military service would be a useful choice when the war comes to you, as total war (all wars in the modern age) rely BOTH on military front line and civilian home front to work smoothly in order to sustain a good war effort. A quota should be made however giving priority to those who can't serve militarily in a homefront war (physical/mental disability, too old, too young etc.) and in terms of numbers to give more manpower to where it needs to be

TL;DR other in terms of only basic national service in most situations, civilian/military service if attacked on home soil

No one should be forced into the military. That is a major, life alterning choice with the potential for devastating, permanent consequences that not everyone is suited for. Also, what are the standards for deciding if someone is or isn't disabled and therefore cannot be drafted? Because many people who do not qualify as disabled are unable to withstand the physical demands of military life. For example, I can walk, run, jump and climb in small doses. But I would become very sick very quickly if I had to do anything that physical for an extended period of time. I also require a special diet. Without that I would be in so much pain I wouldn't be able to move much for a minimum of two or three days. I don't qualify as disabled by government standards, but I am unable to work. I certainly couldn't survive the military.Also, mandatory for who? We can't possibly have EVERYONE in the military, since there are so many other professions that require full time work. So how do we decide who has to serve? Too many variables and potential problems. And no doubt a rebellion for being fprce to serve.

No one should be forced to serve unless it is necessary. Most modern countries have a standing army that's ready to go. There is no reason to have the standard citizen serve if it's not necessary. If the entire army was just gone then maybe, but it's not necessary.

On principle alone I say no, but I do think it would offer a lot of benefits. Everyone would be putting investment in America and it would be something we could all unite and come together on. If everyone has skin in the game, then everyone takes it more seriously. That's why countries like Israel are far more nationalistic. They all took part in building and maintaining that country. That said the down side is a lesser sense of choice and freedom. I do think that lowers the level of creativity in individuals, but it does instill a work ethic that will help you get whatever you set out to achieve. *shrugs*

For:IF the situation ever comes where your country is at war, you have military training already and know how to shoot a gun, your army will be disciplined.Gives everyone experience to defend themselves even outside the military.

Against:In the current age, armies are not really necessary, most modern militaries nowadays use bombing from aircraft and naval battle to fight in wars rather than boots on the ground, so mandatory military service is not as necessary as it seems.Not many people would like to fight for their country, people would not like the draft being instigated.

I mean if we're really just putting it in the books here, then i think having the options of doing something on the front lines or going to a more behind the scenes support role for the country should be the way its done.

The current state of things is more my ideal where people have more freedom or at least a pseudo-freedom with what they want to do. Whether it be a good thing or a bad thing because lots of people end up aimless when it comes to the way they want to live their lives, but then again something like the draft could come and everything just goes out the window anyway so...

Absolutely not. For me it is too much of an infringement of personal liberty, next to that, we don't even have the need of a draft since we're in NATO and that is enough of a deterrent. The military of my country uses fake weapons for soldiers and doesn't have enough bullets to train with and all because of budgetary restraint. The only realistic reason is that it is a country under constant military threat (Israel, South Korea, North Korea, Eritrea). The government here is considering a draft because of populist reasons so if that happens, I might aswell move. That is because I refuse to be there for the state to do whatever they want for such bullshit motivation they make up.

take example of switzerland. everyone goes to a certain military training, so everyone knows how to: fire a gun, reload, run, duck, place booby traps, use a gas mask in case chemicals are thrown, throwing grenades, dig a trench, survive in the wild, so on. It helps as you will not be completely defenseless in case something goes wrong, which is a possibility. Be prepared and you will be better suited to survive in the end.

Plus imagine having to invade a country where even grandma would fire a rocket launcher at you if you blink, where everyone knows what to do in case of an invasion, to know that they have hideouts and enough food and ammo to battle the shit out of you. You would think twice.

not feasible, plus a lot of them wouldn't be cut out for it anyways even if they passed physical and medical, better to reserve the draft for war, although I believe that in this time of forced "equality" Women should be on the draft too if equality is what they really want

When the US went to all-volunteer military, the fights and discipline problems among the rank-and-file troops dropped tremendously. I like the idea of an all-volunteer military, with the exception of maybe a HUGE war and the country were in danger of being invaded. Still, those who served in the military should be given special status, such as the VA benefits the veterans have in the US, or preferential treatment in hiring.

having served 8 years in the army and completed 2 tours of Afghan i think people should have a choice except in the case of world wars.

what really irks me though is how people fail to recognise the contribution soldiers make to society.

"People Sleep Peacefully in Their Beds at Night Only Because Rough Men Stand Ready to Do Violence on Their Behalf"

all the so called "pacifists" in the comments here need to realise that they are able to have that view because men and women before them have died in order for them to have that privilege. The very fact they have a choice is testament to the ultimate sacrifice squaddies have paid in the past.

you are able to have a pacifist point of view because brave men and women died for it, and im not just talking modern conflicts.

I was forced by law to serve in the army for two years. =2 years of time and income lost. While other people with some medical excuse were earning an income and getting promoted. Thousands of euros spoiled.

People should be allowed to decide. Some people have certain plans for their life that they want to achieve and serving would derail that possible. Plus, in my opinion, I wouldn't want to serve in the US military nowadays anyway. Our military is being used to overthrow nations and occupy them. Our military is an embarrassment now; big fall from grace since the days of WW2

Personally, coming from a country with conscription for all men aged 18, though civilian service is an option for those who don't want military service, I see no problem why we couldn't keep the current system, as I think that the experience teaches you some valuable skills, whether they are working with other people or basic survival skill or how to kill a man with or without a weapon. But Finland, as a small country with a large and often aggressive country of Russia as it's neighbor, does, in my opinion, needs that mandatory service in case of a war, because if we don't utilize all available resources and manpower to their maximum potential, we will simply be overrun almost immidiately. For a country like the U. S, that is a lot less of a concern, due to numerous factors.

Nope. I won't fight for a country I have no respect for nor will I fight for fat corrupt politicians who have been spoiled by their rich parents ever since they were born and who are sitting at home while we fight. Id rather fight against them actually.

it depends on your culture, ethics and religion etc. For example in my culture it's preferred to be in military than lead an ordinary civilian life. People have a tendency to join it whenever they get a chance. So, it's not mandatory still everyone wishes for it.

Why would I want to risk my life for a bunch of politicians who just want money? Also, why would I want to kill people who are protecting their resources? that makes me apart of the problem where people think war is actually a solution to helping the human race when it really does nothing but give money to the rich while peoples homes get destroyed

I think it should be compulsory to join the 'civil service' instead. Things like the Customs & Excise, Immigration/Quarantine, Diplomatic Protection, Education Department, Security & Intelligence Service and things like that.

However, I would also say that you should be paid for your service, which would last for 5 years from the age of 18.

Military should not be mandatory because you could end up with people not giving it their all because of not wanting to be there. You could end up with tons of people being discharged for the lack of trying in boot camp let alone battle. If someone does not want to own a gun then why would they want to use an automatic?

For smaller nations that wouldn't be able to have a large functioning military otherwise yeah because if military service is mandatory for smaller nations then their entire population would be combat ready and trained just in case. But if military service wasn't mandatory their forces would be to small in number to effectively fight an attacker.

but for large nations that have huge populations no. As they would most likely get enough recruits that want to willingly join due to patriotism, love of country or stuff like the education benefits, etc.

@MysteriousDarkness Of course not I'm saying that generally in nations where you join by volunteering normally the reason is due to a more serious or increased sense of patriotism or because you want the benefits of the military like education.